JCC Virginia GOP introduces bill to instrumentally RAPE all women who want an abortion (seriously)

Discussion in 'Community' started by Ghost, Feb 17, 2012.

  1. Chancellor_Ewok Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2004
    star 6
    Says who? 50% of your DNA came from your father, so yes he should have a look too, and yes he gets a say in th decision.
  2. GrandAdmiralJello Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2000
    star 10
    The Supreme Court in Casey said that no, no he does not get a say. Should the woman want to, she can involve the man in the decision but any law requiring the male partner to consent is unconstitutional. It's unconstitutional precisely for the reason wannasee suggested: it stinks of patriarchy and chauvinism.

    I understand that people might want males to be subjected to the same treatment as females, but the Supreme Court framed it in another way: it has to do with a woman's bodily integrity and it's her choice, and measures designed by the state to convince women to rethink that decision cannot depend on male consent.
  3. Aytee-Aytee Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2008
    star 5
    That logic is great, and I agree to an extent...but it only works in a stable relationship with open communication by both partners.

    But they still should be held completely responsible to foot the cost for any and all pre- and post-procedural counseling and/or therapy.
  4. AaylaSecurOWNED Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2005
    star 6
    If they didn't want to pay for an abortion they shouldn't have been whoring themselves out and getting ladies pregnant.
  5. GrandAdmiralJello Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2000
    star 10
    Sure, I don't have a problem with that. I expect a lot of men would raise religious convictions as an argument that they shouldn't pay for a procedure they did not consent to, but that's their problem.
  6. ApolloSmileGirl Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 18, 2004
    star 8
    They sure as hell shouldn't be making judgements either
  7. The Musical Jedi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 13, 1999
    star 5
    Huh? I did an appendectomy this morning, and I didn't show the patient the CT scan. I also dealt with a kid with intussussception that also required imaging to rule out malrotation, and I didn't show the parents the xrays or the upper GI. If they had asked, I would, but the reason we don't usually volunteer it is that these are highly technical images that take years to learn how to read correctly. They have an entire specialty devoted to this concept - radiology. Showing a woman a fuzzy image that looks like TV static as part of a "medical" procedure with no indication and no value and telling her it's an unborn child (when really it's exactly what you said - a clump of cells that couldn't survive outside of the uterus) is manipulative and exploitative - which the last time I checked is unethical behavior on the part of the physician. Call me old fashioned, but I think it's better to form a relationship with the patient and actually have a conversation about what's going on and what the patient wants - not resort to shocking or manipulative behavior to force them to make the "right" decision.
  8. Raven Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 5, 1998
    star 6

    I'm fine with this law, so long as everyone who votes for a party that supports this law makes has to adopt children before they're allowed to have their own children, whether they want to or not.

    "I shouldn't have to raise this child!"
    "Well, you should have thought of that before you voted for the party you did."
  9. wannasee Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 24, 2007
    star 4
    You don't need to be trained in radiology to recognize a heart beat. At least that is what I have been led to believe by numerous television shows and my sisters' reports of their experiences with ultrasounds.

    I think that, provided that the doctor uses neutral and accurate language to describe what is being seen, it isn't manipulative to show pictures of what is actually occuring inside of the woman.

    In fact, I take the opposite view. The fact that people want to shield the mother from the images is manipulative. Why keep the woman uninformed? Let her see what she is terminating, and, if after viewing it, she still feels it's a meaningless clump of cells, then by all means she should abort it and feel no compunction about it.

    I mean, I got a haircut yesterday, and had lots of hair cells removed from my body and I don't feel bad about it.

    Of the two choices, informed or uninformed, I think it is more ethical to have the patient be informed. And one of the best ways to be informed is to see things with your own eyes.


    A better idea would be to enslave abandoned children. That way the parents would be forced (if they have any conscience at all) to keep the child that they created without any help from anyone else.
  10. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    A blood test has already confirmed the pregnancy. There is no need to dig down any deeper really.
  11. wannasee Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 24, 2007
    star 4
    There is a difference between something not being necessary and something being wrong. Also, there are varying levels of being "informed" about a pregnancy>
  12. Alpha-Red Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 25, 2004
    star 5
    Anybody who knows half a thing about biology knows what pregnancy entails. And if for some reason they don't, a consultation with a doctor will be all the information they need. Looking at an ultrasound doesn't provide any worthwhile information. If the mother wants to see it then that's fine, but the fact that we're trying to force people to look just shows that there's a group out there that wants to shame and guilt others for not living up to their moral code.
  13. Raven Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 5, 1998
    star 6
    That's rather horrifying, and totally immoral. If you really think that children should be carried to term rather than aborted, you have a moral responsibility to adopt the unwanted children of the world. Put your money where your mouth is.
  14. The Musical Jedi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 13, 1999
    star 5
    First off, I would recommend not getting your medical information from TV shows... Secondly, you don't need a vaginal ultrasound to hear a heartbeat. You don't, in fact, need a formal transabdominal ultrasound. You can do that with a doppler. But that still doesn't change the fact you don't need an ultrasound AT ALL to diagnose a pregnancy or safely obtain an abortion. I fail to see how not ordering a test that is not indicated is keeping the mother uninformed. There is no medical reason to get an ultrasound before performing one. None.
  15. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    The only way to be informed is looking at pictures. Full stop. Which is why people who are legally blind can never be considered to have given informed consent.

    Alas, if only humanity had some ability to understand information in other ways. Like, perhaps a particular succession of noises that represent a common, predetermined schematic for expressing thoughts and ideas. A man can dream anyway, I guess.
  16. ApolloSmileGirl Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 18, 2004
    star 8
    Wannasee, when you've had your first, rough, long, colonoscopy, that was mandated by a BS law being proposed....

    Then, maybe, you can seriously bitch about how things in life aren't fair.
  17. Sauntaero Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 9, 2003
    star 4
    This is actually making me feel ill. Thanks, Virginia GOP, for brightening my day. [face_plain]
  18. Obi-Zahn Kenobi Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 23, 1999
    star 7
    The so-called "birth control pills" often work by preventing implantation, which is an abortifacient method. Just so we're clear. Yes, I realize that is not the majority of cases, but they can work that way. The same for IUD's.

    Barrier methods aren't abortifacients - but realize that some of the things called "contraception" in fact can also work in an abortive way.
  19. wannasee Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 24, 2007
    star 4
    You cannot shame and guilt people if they aren't doing anything wrong.

    Look at my example of the haircut. They didn't show me a picture of the hair and then cut it. I was FORCED to look at myself AS they were cutting clumps of cells off of me.

    I didn't feel bad, because I wasn't doing anything wrong.

    You are just repeating yourself.

    While there is no medical reason for the ultrasound, there
  20. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    An abortion is terminating a pregnancy. Preventing implantation is preventing a pregnancy from happening in the first place. I guess the Catholic Church's definition of abortion could be different, but it certainly wouldn't be the commonly accepted version. And since when does the Church treat "barrier methods" with any more acceptability?
  21. wannasee Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 24, 2007
    star 4
    I'm guessing that they consider the moment of conception to be the beginning of pregnancy.
  22. The Musical Jedi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 13, 1999
    star 5
    So colonoscopy is invasive and painful.... But a vaginal ultrasound is not?

    Also, I'm not buying your ethical mandate for the ultrasound. It doesn't fit with beneficence, non-maleficience, or autonomy. It's still manipulation to make a woman make the "right" choice of maintaining a pregnancy instead of the "wrong" choice of having an abortion.
  23. Mustafar_66 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 20, 2005
    star 5
    I don't get why women would need to see an ultrasound of the fetus. What's the logic behind it, that they'll change their mind and go all sentimental? Why is it a good thing to guilt trip women into keeping a child they otherwise wouldn't want? It's not like the world needs more people, let alone unwanted children. Would love a reasonable, rational explanation to the idea.
  24. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    You want me to speak with you more seriously? Fine.

    Women do often talk about how the first time they hear a heartbeat or see an image of their future child as the moment it seemed "real." But, in using that term, they generally mean that it's the beginning of their emotional connection to their offspring.

    There is no "ethical" imperative, let alone a state interest, in having the woman become emotionally invested as part of the abortion. That doesn't have anything to do with understanding their pregnancy, the decision to terminate it, or the details and consequences of either. It's just trying to provoke an emotional reaction. We could do the same thing in the opposite direction. Parents often talk about how they didn't completely anticipate what it would be like to care for a child and having it wake you up at all hours of the night. Should a prolonged period of mandatory sleep-deprivation and badgering be mandatory before they make the decision, too?

    It's no one's business to try and inspire mothers to feel one way or another about their pregnancy. If they want to work on feeling attached to the baby, that's their right. They can get ultrasounds and pore over the images. But if they'd rather not do that, that's also their right. Either way, it's well outside the job of healthcare provider.
  25. GrandAdmiralJello Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2000
    star 10
    The logic is that the state gets to protect its interest in the fetus's life by persuasive methods. Whether that's reasonable is another matter.